Houston City Council passed the feeding ordinance today despite the protests from many Houstonians. Although this ordinance is slightly better than the one originally proposed, Mayor Annise Parker severely failed on this one. The ordinance that passed requires written permission from the property owner to feed five or more homeless people and gives the city parks director the authority to designate certain parks as legal feeding venues (see here). The ordinance also asks for charitable organizations to voluntarily register with the city and agree to safety rules and the coordination of scheduling. The penalty for violations is $500.

There are many, many things wrong with this ordinance, and I think many of the council members and others have done a great job explaining that. So rather than reiterate the same reasons why this ordinance is so awful, here is my take on how they should fix the ordinance (IF they HAD to pass something at all – and at this point, I am not convinced of that):

The City of Houston could create a website that allows charitable organizations to sign up on a voluntary basis, similar to the current ordinance. The website would allow charitable organizations to sign up on a calendar for a date, time, and location for where they are planning on feeding the homeless. Owners of private land even put their location on the calendar to allow charitable organizations to sign up at their place too. The difference between this and the current ordinance is that this plan wouldn’t prohibit other groups from feeding the homeless on the same day. Rather, it would just allow groups to coordinate their efforts, and since the website could run on its own, it would cost very little for the city to help this coordination…. Again, only if the city really thinks that this “problem” is as necessary as they say.

Charities that feed the homeless have to work very hard for the monetary donations they receive. I am sure that many charities would voluntarily sign up for this website to join efforts to make sure that they aren’t planning a big event to feed the homeless at the same time and place as another group. Coordinating efforts is helpful and might be welcomed by groups.

This would completely do away with penalties and requiring written permission to feed five or more people. Charities would be able to see many private locations that welcome their services. If a private land owner is worried about loitering and littering, there are already laws on the books for them to follow. We don’t need more! Also, if a land owner has tried to remove the homeless from his or her land to no avail, they could put up a “no loitering” sign and another sign explaining that food is not allowed on the property. Surely charities will listen and find another place to feed the homeless. Charities aren’t here to make enemies!

There are many other cities that have similar ordinances such as Orlando, Dallas, and Las Vegas. All of these cases ended with lawsuits and many unhappy people, and there is no concrete evidence that such ordinances have helped anyone concerned. Mayor Parker should rethink the message this is sending to the city. This ordinance will do little other than making Houstonians angry and criminals out of those who are here to help.

Thanks to the following council members who voted against the ordinance: Mike Sullivan, Helena Brown, Al Hoang, Oliver Pennington, C.O. Bradford and Jack Christie.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the proposed rate increase by Entergy for Kingwood-area customers was “not considered controversial.” … until allegations of communism were thrown around.

Entergy wants to increase the Kingwood area of Houston by $14.37/month because it is at the southern tip of their service area. The city of Houston did a study of this proposal at the request of Council Member Mike Sullivan, who is the council member in Kingwood (District E). According to the study, “‘Entergy’s rate increase request is overstated and not supported by evidence.’” In fact, the study showed that the rates are actually too high as it is. When it came up for a vote, Council Member Helena Brown stated that she is in support of the rate increase “because it is justified” (you can view the video here – it is Item 30). She went on to say the following:

“‘I understand my colleague Sullivan expressed the concerns of his constituents in the Kingwood area. But I also understand the folks in Kingwood are conservatives. They do not believe in the regulation of rates of businesses. That’s communism. I will be standing in support of this business and the need that they have” (see here).

To her comment, CM Sullivan said, “‘Truthfully, I don’t think you have a clue what Kingwood believes in.’” He went on to say that he is not a communist. Showing some levity about the whole situation, Council member James Rodriguez called CM Sullivan, “Comrade Sullivan” and slapped him on the shoulder.

There are just so many problems with this whole scenario. The first is CM Brown’s attempt to use an ordinance to highlight a bigger problem. Entergy is essentially a monopoly. There is no free market competition between companies. Since government has made it into a monopoly, the government is the only form of checks and balances. CM Brown clearly believes in electricity deregulation and wants the government to have no part in setting prices. I’m not going to get into whether or not she is correct in this belief because that could be a whole blog itself. Whether you agree with this concept or not, she is not going about it the best way. If she doesn’t want the government to regulate prices, she should work on making it so. However, until that happens, city council should be responsible to consider the merit of each proposed price increase. By not considering the proposal at all just because she doesn’t believe the government should have a say, she is doing an injustice to all the Kingwood residents.

Next, CM Brown said,“We have a situation where as a city we just recently passed an increase on the taxicab rate, 13%. We also last year increased water rates by 40%. And now we’re talking about a small energy company, serving its clients well, wanting to do a 13% increase.” I’m really not sure what one thing has to do with another. Is she really using two other rate increases (one of which, the taxicab increase, she voted against) as means to justify other rate increases? Somehow the government should get involved with taxicab rates but not Entergy rates?

Also, CM Brown said, “They [Entergy] will get the approval of this when they appeal to the Board [Public Utility Commission]. It will be approved, and so this is just delaying the inevitable.” Although CM Brown has been in office only since January, she has done more than her fair share of tagging. (Tagging is when a council member delays an ordinance’s vote for a week). When all council members and the mayor are in agreement except for her, isn’t she just delaying the inevitable by putting it off for a week? You are supposed to vote yes or no on issues based on merit and not just to delay the inevitable of a future vote.

Next, CM Brown said that a rate increase is justified even though a study showed that it is not. Council Member Bradford made a good point by questioning if the study didn’t support this increase, what did the study show to be necessary? Apparently the study showed that no increase is justified and that rates should actually be reduced. If Council denies the increase, Entergy can take it to the Public Utility Commission.CM Brown said that the increase is justified based on what information? It is irresponsible to make an assertion like that without basing it on anything and basically saying that if the company believes it is necessary, it must be.

To add to the odd day, Council Member Jerry Davis wore a hoodie to highlight the Trayvon Martin case…. He also appeared to be chewing gum the whole time. What a peculiar day for City Council when one of the most conservative members has to actually say the words, “I am not a communist by voting for this rate denial.”

Mayor Annise Parker announced the new City Council committees and their chairs and vice chairs (see below or here). There are some interesting points to note about the new committees.

First, Council Member Mike Sullivan is no longer the chair of the Ethics, Elections, and Council Governance Committee, and he is not the chair or vice chair of any committee. While there are fewer committees this time, he is an experienced member who knows how to effectively run a committee. Although CM Sullivan is known as the conservative vote of “no”, Mayor Parker has picked conservatives to be in powerful positions before. Council Member Anne Clutterbuck was picked to be the Mayor Pro-Tem by Parker, and Parker also chose her to be the chair of the Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee. Clutterbuck later resigned as Mayor Pro-Tem, perhaps at the request of Parker? Maybe that was a bit of foreshadowing for what was to come.

Other items to note: Council Member Stephen Costello is the new chair of the Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee. In general he might be a neutral pick – not too far to the left or the right. Before I get hate mail on that comment, yes, I know he was the driving force behind Rebuild Houston. What I mean is that in general terms, he doesn’t seem to side with one party or the other. He appears to vote issue by issue. This will be good in some situations and bad in others. We will have to wait and see. I am uneasy with him being on the TRANSPORTATION, TECHNOLOGY & INFRASTRUCTURE (TTI) Committee. While he has valuable expertise with this subject, he should not be allowed to vote on anything in the committee that benefits his company. Finally, Bradford isn’t the chair of the Public Safety Committee? He used to be the Chief of Police, so his expertise might have been useful there, but at least he is on the committee.

See anything else interesting about the committees? Comment below, or send me an e-mail.

I think Mayor Parker will win reelection. Although there are many people who will gladly vote for anyone else, there are still plenty of people who are excited to continue voting for Parker. As of November 3rd, early voting was down by 23%. This shows that people might not be as excited to rush out to vote for Parker, but it also shows that people aren’t excited to vote against her either.

District A:Brenda Stardig
Helena Brown
Bob Schoellkopf

CM Stardig will likely win again. Although Brown raised more money than a challenger to an incumbent is expected to, beating an incumbent is so difficult, and I don’t think Brown did enough.

It is really difficult to predict who the front runners are in this one. There will be a runoff, but I don’t think anyone can predict at this point who will be in that runoff.

District C:
Randy Locke
Josh VerdeEllen Cohen
Karen Derr
Brian Cweren

I think Cohen pretty much has this one locked up. The only thing standing in her way is the fact that she and Derr might split votes, causing a runoff between Cohen and Cweren. Even with a runoff, I think Cohen will win.

I predict CM Hoang will win. Even if a District F resident is incensed with Hoang’s job (which many definitely are), the presence of two other candidates to choose from will render a splitting of votes, causing Hoang to win.

District G:
Clyde BryanOliver Pennington

Although CM Pennington is an incumbent, many people in District G know Bryan. Still I don’t think that enough people are upset with Pennington’s performance to change their vote. Let’s not forget that Pennington beat four other people in 2009 and won with 59.10% of the vote.

District H:
Patricia RodriguezEdward “Ed” Gonzalez

CM Gonzalez will likely win again.

District I:
Leticia Gutierrez AblazaJames Rodriguez

CM Rodriguez will likely win again.

District J:Mike Laster
Rodrigo Canedo
Criselda Romero

Laster raised the most money. Although this district is considered a “Hispanic-Opportunity District,” with only 17 of registered voters with Hispanic surnames, I don’t think being Hispanic automatically predicts a win here. I think Laster will win.

District K:
Pat FrazierLarry Green
Alex Gonik

Simply, Green has the money and the endorsements. While that doesn’t always predict a win, I think it will in this case.

This is a hard one to say. CM Costello is the one behind the Rebuild Houston drainage fee, and I think most voters know that by now. Although many are angry about it, let’s not forget that it did pass by the voters in the last election. Even when you take away the number of people who originally voted for it and are now against it, there are still many who support the fee and who support Costello. Couple that with the fact that Boates recently stated that he “‘ joined both parties this year as part of this run for office.'” It’s fine if someone is a moderate (actually that might not be a bad thing at all), but his poor choice of words and the fact that it will be difficult to make headway with either party might cause a clear opening for Costello to win again. I am fairly confident in many of my predictions, but I really won’t be shocked if Costello loses.

This is another one where it is really difficult to predict. I think there will be a runoff that includes Thibaut, but I am not sure who will be in it with her. Maybe Robinson, but then again, let’s not discount the fact that for the last couple of months you couldn’t drive anywhere in Houston without seeing an Eric Dick (illegal) sign. In the end I think Thibaut will win.

At-Large 3:Melissa Noriega
Chris Carmona
J. Brad Batteau

CM Noriega will likely win. I think those who supported her last time still support her today.

At-Large 4:
Louis Molnar
Amy PriceC. O. “Brad” Bradford

I don’t see CM Bradford losing his seat. He has lots of support from both sides of the aisle and hasn’t done anything that the majority of voters would find alarming.

At-Large 5:
Laurie Robinson
Jolanda “Jo” JonesJack Christie
Bob Ryan

I really think Christie will win this time. I think enough people are mad an CM Jones and want her out. With Christie as the clear front runner with Jones, I think it will end up being just a battle between them with Christie winning.

C.O. Bradford:I don’t see Bradford losing this election. He has $44,120 in his coffers, endorsements of most organizations that have already issued endorsements, and he is fairly well-liked by republicans and democrats.

Louis Molnar:
He has a cohesive platform and an interesting background, but with only $2,625 in the bank and little name recognition, I don’t think he would win if the election was held today.

Amy Price:Price is a member of the Green Party. She will find her niche of voters, but at this point (unless something changes before the election), I think she will come in third.

If the election was today, I think Bradford would win without a runoff.

In a city where we’ve had to look for new ways to collect taxes, increase fees, and decrease services, we have been told that every penny counts. Then shouldn’t $3 million count considerably??

Mayor Parker recently barely secured enough votes to approve a new wireless contract that would save $3 million. AT&T is the current provider for city cell phones and emergency communications. Parker has been trying for a while now to switch the contract over to Sprint to save $3 million.

Sure, there are a few detriments to consider: Sprint is not a Texas company like AT&T, Sprint might not have the infrastructure and personnel support needed during disasters like hurricanes as AT&T does, and Parker’s former campaign treasurer is a registered lobbyist for Sprint.

So with all of these items to think about before approving the new contract, what was the main concern with Sprint? They are not a union like AT&T! $3 million is on the table here, and that is what council members are concerned with? Council members approve contracts for the city all the time, and I can’t remember a time where members tried to go with another company based only on whether or not they are a union. It is time for them to wake up and hear from their constituents that we need to take a serious look at our finances and cut every place we can.

How the council members voted:
FOR (approving the change from AT&T to Sprint):
Anne Clutterbuck, Stephen Costello, Sue Lovell, Oliver Pennington, James Rodriguez, Brenda Stardig, and Mike Sullivan